entropizer

Thank you for answering this. I didn't expect it, but I really appreciate the honesty.

It might have been helpful if you unpackaged "female badassery" for us, in a "show, don't tell" kind of way. As it is now, you just assert that your book meets a demographic checklist without giving the reader any real idea what to expect. This was really offputting to me, and apparently to others too. What does "female badassery" mean to you? Can you give an example from your book or from other works that influenced your writing? What's your favorite episode of Buffy, say, and why?

If somebody said, "tell me about yourself" and you responded by saying "I'm a woman" without elaborating on it, that'd be a really quick way to kill the conversation. When you're describing your book, things kind of work the same way. You've given us nothing to talk about except your pictures and your identity as a young white female author. That's boring and superficial. It reeks of the YA marketing sheen that's become all too common in the industry. What are you actually like? What does your book actually do? Talk to us about your ideas, not your identity. Ideas are what are actually important, the reason I actually like to read books. If I want identity I'll go watch E! News or browse /r/subredditdrama.

I wish people would tone down the hostility, but I agree with a lot of the concerns people have expressed here.

[deleted]

that dehumanization plays in provoking cycles of conflict

In this study, why did you take the alt-right Mturkers at their word when they assigned low levels of humanity to their ideological opponents? My inclination is to interpret their responses as significantly (though not entirely) nonliteral, a general expression of negative sentiment through the tool you provided them. I guess what I'm asking is how we can distinguish between dehumanization as rhetorical flair and dehumanization as internalized belief. While these feed into each other somewhat, I think there's still a lot of difference between them.